Low dose post from Elite (The way pros used to cycle)

**BASK8KACE** · 11-25-2002, 10:55 PM

I just read the following post over at Elite; it was posted by "Realgains." I've already supported my discussions regarding low doses of testosterone with studies, real data and personal experience. But I've only talked about testosterone, since that is what I have solid information about. Here's a post from Elite (written by "Realgains") that talks about low doses and other steroids besides just testosterone. I thought it might be worth posting here for discussion:

The following is the quoted post from Elite:

Newbie cycles that vets could learn from. (post #1)

NEWBIES..... you would do very well following this advice.
Vets.......... maybe we have something to learn still.

After doing much digging in regard to the way men used to cycle years ago I have come to the conclusion that 98% of us use too much gear....please read on.

I have always been a believer in using as little gear as possible but even I have used way too much in the past and this has resulted in big sides.

Here are examples of cycles used by the pro's of the late 60's and 70's. They were certainly well developed men actually looked better then most of the pro's today IMHO.

My Hero The late great Mike Mentzer was considered a man living on the edge in the late 70's and up until he retired after the 80 Olympia.

MIKE MENTZER
In prep for the 80 Olympia Mike used 400 of deca and 20 or 30 of d-bol per day. I think it was actually 20 of d-bol . I believe he took the d-bol for 4-6 weeks only.This was considered a BIG dose of juice. This was published in his "Heavy Duty Journal" and was well know . Mike was one of the only Bodybuilders that made "no bones" about his roid use.
Now Mike was a big guy and very strong and walked around in the off season at about 250 fairly lean pounds at 5'-9"

The following I got from Nelson Montana.

ARNOLD
He reported liked 600 of primo and 50 of d-bol per day.

SERGIO
This huge bro used 200 of deca/week and 20 of winny per day.

FRANK ZANE
Frank likeed 100 of deca and 100 of primo and was know to use a little thyroid as well.

DAVE DRAPER
Dave used 25 of winny per day way back in the late 60's

LARRY SCOTT
Larry used 10 of d-bol in divided doses per day. This was considered a large dose back in the mid 60's

Now all these guys are bigger than 95% of the members of this board I am sure and if they didn't need large doses then why do you?
Do what they did......be a lifter first and then use a little roid as a SUPPLEMENT.

Unless you are 40 or more pounds above your natural maximum weight AND are a top competitor I see no reason to use high doses of gear. Even Quadsweep "The Voice of Reason" who is a top national level competitor doesn't use half the juice that many of you use.

It has been said by many that gains made slowly and in smaller jumps are kept better. I for one strongly believe this. The human body is not meant to gain 30 pounds of bulk in 8 weeks..much of that will be lost post cycle as the body just can't hold it all at once. It makes much better sence to gain slowly but surely. It is better for your health and the low doses avoid the puffy watery look that was not even acceaptable in the off season in 1975.

Perhaps we all need to re-think how we use steroids .

Realgains suggestions for the newbies.

200 of deca/week for 10 weeks and 10- 20 of d-bol per day for 4-6 weeks in divided doses.

200 of deca/week for 10 weeks and 25 of winstrol per day for 4-6 weeks

250 of test alone for 8-10 weeks

250-400 of primo alone

250-300 of EQ alone

10-20 of d-bol alone in four divided doses per day for 6 weeks

Good luck!

RG
The above was quoted from Elite's member, "Realgains."

**RoNNy THe BuLL** · 11-25-2002, 10:57 PM

Good post. But how long were they conescutively on these cycles?

**BASK8KACE** · 11-25-2002, 11:02 PM

I just posted this as fodder for discussion. I'm not sure the lenghths of time of the cycles (you might want to take a look at the full thread over at Elite).

I've noticed, especially for Equipoise (EQ), people have been debating whether longer cycles of lower doses of AS might show more steady, keepable gains as opposed to blowing up in 10 weeks while using higher doses.

**RoNNy THe BuLL** · 11-26-2002, 12:13 AM

That's very interesting. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. The more you gain, the more you lose. The lower you gain, the more you keep.
Hm....
I guess to undergo that method requires a lot of patience and dedication....unlike the quick fix of higher dosage AS use? That explains the difference between the Aesthetics of the older pro's then the newer ones.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd take Mentzer/Arnolds/Haney's physique over Coleman/Priest and a few others...the only physique that comes close to theirs is Shawn Rays for sheer symmetry and proportion.

**The Butcher** · 11-26-2002, 01:25 AM

I agree w/you bask8kase; newbies should use lower doses. I got more off of my first cycle (200 mg enanthate /week and 200 mg laurabolin /week for 6 weeks) than almost any subsequent cycle. I now use what some would consider a bit much, but only after finding that my body no longer responded to the lower doses. I think this resistance comes with increased body weight as well as a potential for the body to build up a slight resistance to the AS themselves. I talked w/a national level competitor this past weekend and even he said that he does better staying on more moderate doses for longer periods of time than just blasting himself with large amounts of AS. As a "for instance" he only uses about 600-700 mg of test/week, 50mg of winni every day, and a reasonable amount of eq or deca . Granted, he uses the advantages offered by growth and insulin , but if you figure this guy can step on stage taking a stack that many "recreational" bodybuilders take, there shouldn't be much a need to pump all of that extra juice into your body. So, all of you newbies intelligent enough (and fortunate enough) to read and listen to these posts, start out w/moderate doses. Information from intelligent and reliable sources is invaluable. If I only knew then what I know now...

**JP1570** · 11-26-2002, 02:05 AM

You make some good points, but there's a flipside to that coin. I used 400mg of test and 400mg of eq for twelve wks and had minimal gains. 99% of us don't have the genetics those pros you mentioned have, so we compensate by using more juice.

**BASK8KACE** · 11-26-2002, 02:53 AM

Honestly, I just have a hard time believing that anyone with 800mg of AS a week (400mg test + 400mg EQ) cannot make reasonable gains.

If you're gear is good AND your diet, rest, workout and dicipline are all in order, I don't see how a person can't grow with that amount of chemicals pumped into his/her body.

BTW the points made in the first post of this thread are not mine, they are from a post at another board called "ELITE." The author of the post is "Realgains," a member at Elite.

**Big Al** · 11-26-2002, 03:48 AM

Diet is key, AAS will only work in conjuction with a high class diet, high doses should not be used to compensate genetics, diet or training.

**MR PHATT ASS** · 11-26-2002, 04:06 AM

......did these guys use any antis like clomid or something to get their test levels going again????...and nova???well i guess the doseges where so low that maybe nova wasnt needed????....true???

**lwb357** · 11-26-2002, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by RoNNy THe BuLL
I don't know about you guys, but I'd take Mentzer/Arnolds/Haney's physique over Coleman/Priest and a few others...the only physique that comes close to theirs is Shawn Rays for sheer symmetry and proportion. [/B]

Amen, nobody nowadays looks as good as those guys did!!!

**bonker** · 11-26-2002, 09:44 AM

I agree 100 %.I am only 24 yrs old and believe me i've done my share of cycles with heavy ass side effects.I have sworn to myself to stay clean for at least a year.After that I might experiment with some morning dbol and some eq over longer periods.Just think about it.It is resonable to say you can gain and keep 5 pounds a year pretty easily.Doesnt seem like much but over 5 years thats 25lbs of solid gains.Very impressive.But we all want to be big now.

**BIGBOD** · 11-26-2002, 10:26 AM

Not to say that the post isn't true but you have to realize that back then everything was dosed lower, even aspirin. Right now I'm taking 800 mg of motrin a day for my knees. Half that dose in the 60's and people would have thought that was way too much. Until this day tests are still being ran on steroids to find out which doses are dangerous to your health. Some things just increase over time. Don't get me wrong though, I do believe that over prolonged peroids of time with smaller doses that you would be able to keep more of your gains than with larger doses and smaller amounts of time.

**The Butcher** · 11-26-2002, 01:05 PM

Bigbod, you are correct that back then, 800mg of ibuprofen would have been considered excessive. For their time, Arnold et. al. took what was considered "large" amounts of AS. Their competitve cycles look like today's recreational cycles. However, is there anyone here that would be unhappy with Arnold, Mentzer, or Haney's physique? I doubt it. Obviously you have to factor in genetics, but given the wealth of knowledge about nutrition and training that we have now compared to then, it seems like most everyone could benefit from looking back at what was achieved with less. We all see that today's bodybuilders essentially dwarf (size wise) the bodybuilders of 20-30 years ago, but it's not just the AS that does this. Throw in the nutrition, training knowledge, growth, and insulin , and you see where most of the extra size comes from. I agree with bask8kase that JP1570 should have gotten some gains of some sort from his 400mg of test and 400mg of eq. Something besides the doses of AS were to blame for a lack of progress. Diet, sleep, training, fake gear, being on at higher doses and not taking sufficient time off before resuming with the lower dose. Something.

**majorpecs** · 11-26-2002, 01:27 PM

bump..interesting....

**BASK8KACE** · 11-26-2002, 03:01 PM

Just a general thought:

Based on school/common knowledge, I'd say, "Yes, we evolve."

BUT...LESS THAN 50 years have passed since Haney, Arnold and company were in top shape--Does "evlolution" happen that quickly? If you answered yes to that question, then I'd like to ask you this:

How many people in your bloodline have used steroids ? Have there been enough steroid users in your family bloodline to have evloved your body chemistry so much that you need 4 and 5 times the amount of steroids top bodybuilders were taking only 40 years ago?

**Diesel1** · 11-27-2002, 08:26 AM

Dave Polumbo from Muscular Development says the length of the cycle is more important than the dosage. He says it makes more sense to take smaller more conservative doses for longer periods (16-24 weeks), rather than high doses for shorter cycles(8 weeks). He says your more likely to keep gains because your body can adjust a lot easier to its new "set point", which makes a lot of sense.

***JohnnyB*** · 11-27-2002, 08:53 AM

I did 500mg of test and 400mg of EQ my first cycle. Had some problems, could be my age (47) as well, but have decided to go with a low dose for longer on my next one. I have thought of doing a short cycle with short esters to see if that would help, but I'll wait on that.

I like the way the bodybuilders of the 70's looked over todays.

JohnnyB

**dizzle** · 11-27-2002, 10:11 AM

One thing that might also take into consideration, is that these people were using legit human pharmaceutical grade gear. Over half this board uses Mex Vet or an underground lab gear which is usually underdosed.

**BASK8KACE** · 11-27-2002, 01:09 PM

I'm curious if anyone knows to what extent today's underground/vet gear is underdosed. Unless people are getting completely scammed (dose-wise), which I think is the exception rather than the rule, then the underground/vet gear is not too badly under dosed. I'm guessing, the common doses are just a few mg off--an amount which is not enough to justify 800mg per week vs. 200mg per week of a given AS during initial cycles.

In other words, Dizzle, if your theory on under dosing were the main reason for larger doses today, then a scenario of your theroy would play out kind of like this:

800mg of underground/vet test = 200mg/ml of human grade testosterone . This is equivalent to saying, underground/vet gear advertised at 200mg/ml is actually only 50mg/ml (75% underdosed). I think more people would be complaining if that were the reality.

I just think there has been a shift in attitude--not just in steroids but in people's ideas in general (I think the 1980's had a lot to do with it). The attitude embodies the idea of: "more is more; faster is better."
I am not flaming people who use high doses. There are many reasons people choose to up their dose. I'm mainly focusing on the new users who on their first, second or third cycle are SERIOUSLY considering using ridiculously high amounts of AS. I hope a new user will find this thread and maybe some other threads on low doses and think twice before they leap.

**JP1570** · 11-27-2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by BASK8KACE
Honestly, I just have a hard time believing that anyone with 800mg of AS a week (400mg test + 400mg EQ) cannot make reasonable gains.

If you're gear is good AND your diet, rest, workout and dicipline are all in order, I don't see how a person can't grow with that amount of chemicals pumped into his/her body.

BTW the points made in the first post of this thread are not mine, they are from a post at another board called "ELITE." The author of the post is "Realgains," a member at Elite.

My diet and training habits are good. I made "reasonable" gains, but I was pretty disappointed for my first cycle. I had gained around 5 solid pounds in 8wks before I started the fina. I'm 6'2" and weigh 230 pounds, so I probably need a little more AS to make good gains than your average guy.

**lwb357** · 11-27-2002, 03:09 PM

i'm curious if anyone can quote reliable resources of exactly what the old timers used. i read somewhere that they did 1 dbol a day year round and that in some meeting or group gathering a couple of the guys were talking about upping the dose to two per day and the majority walked out in disgust thinking they were over the edge.

phew...talk about a run on sentence!

i doubt reliable sources exist since most are still denying they ever did roids.

**lwb357** · 11-27-2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by BASK8KACE
Honestly, I just have a hard time believing that anyone with 800mg of AS a week (400mg test + 400mg EQ) cannot make reasonable gains.

If you're gear is good AND your diet, rest, workout and dicipline are all in order, I don't see how a person can't grow with that amount of chemicals pumped into his/her body.

i do to, i put on 20lbs on my first dbol only cycle. i'm not trying to flame you, but i think you got hosed. my experience has been that if your gear is good, diet and rest aren't THAT important. i'm beginning to wonder if more people aren't shooting fake gear.

the only other explanation i have is that people who haven't reached there own genetic potential don't respond to roids as well.

**plucks** · 11-27-2002, 04:44 PM

I have to say that the lower dosage over long periods sound like a logical idea as some have stated here. But my question is this. Say i would take a normal cycle by todays standards, 400mg/eq, 500mg/sus, 50mg winny. How would you streach this out. Would you cut it in half and spread it out twice as long? And what about the oral steroids ? Are these taken for lower dosages for longer periods of time as well, if so what are the effects to the liver. Just some questions to see what everyone thinks...

**BASK8KACE** · 11-27-2002, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by plucks
I have to say that the lower dosage over long periods sound like a logical idea as some have stated here. But my question is this. Say i would take a normal cycle by todays standards, 400mg/eq, 500mg/sus, 50mg winny. How would you streach this out. Would you cut it in half and spread it out twice as long? And what about the oral steroids? Are these taken for lower dosages for longer periods of time as well, if so what are the effects to the liver. Just some questions to see what everyone thinks...

Plucks:

I've been fiddling with the math of longer cycles, so I can answer that easily.

Let's say you have two 10ml vials of 200mg/ml of equipoise :

You can do the traditional 10 week cycle...
Weeks 1-10:
EQ @ 400mg per week (divided into 2 shots)

or a 14 week cycle with a taper...
Weeks 1-12:
EQ @ 300mg per week (divided into 1 or 2 shots)
Weeks 13-14:
EQ @ 200mg per week (divided into 1 or 2 shots)

or a 16 week cycle...
Weeks 1-16:
EQ @ 250mg per week (divided into 1 or 2 shots)

Just make sure you're dealing with an AS that won't harm you if you take it over a long period of time.

Best of luck.

**Toenail Juice Z** · 11-27-2002, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by RoNNy THe BuLL

I don't know about you guys, but I'd take Mentzer/Arnolds/Haney's physique over Coleman/Priest and a few others...the only physique that comes close to theirs is Shawn Rays for sheer symmetry and proportion.

You forgot to mention Flex Wheeler.

The ultimate physique in my eyes. Very small bone structure with perfect muscular symetrical muscle bellies.

**Sir Victorian guy, V.C.** · 11-27-2002, 07:18 PM

I have some serious doubts about the info in that post at elite.

Just my .02...I think the stars of the 60's and 70's, in order to make themselves seem superior to today's bodybuilders, outright lie concerning doses they did.
REMEMBER-these are the same guys who lied about gear use until they knew everyone knew they used them, so then they say 'well sure i used roids...but only a tiny teeny bit...". 10mg dbol ? Larry Scott gained 28 pounds in 1 month back in around 64 or 65. He attributed it to a Weider weight gainer (I saw the ad in an old Weider training guide). And when he admitted, to a reporter, at the 66 olympia that yes, steroids were used, he got shit from other bodybuilders who jumped in and uttered their bullshit denials. I believe that maybe they didnt use what pros use today..so they were smaller...but still, you dont look like larry scott with 10mg dbol a day.
Back in the 70's, Arnold and Ferrigno went on a talk show (host- geraldo rivera) and when asked if they used steroids, they both answered "NAAAWWW. No" then later arnold says he did use them, but only 'experimented' with them. Geez. If 10mg dbol did what Larry scott claims..does anyone know anyone who looks like Larry scott (ripped, 18 inch arms, 220-230 pounds) and uses 10mg dbol a day?
rick Wayne wrote that arnold was doing 'handfuls of dbol' at a time. And sergio oliva? 20mg dbol a day? I dont believe it. I bet it was more like 50-100 a day, year round. Anyone remember when sergio got busted and a muscle mag printed his 'anti-steroid ' article, likely written as part of some kind of plea bargain. He wrote that he did gear for 17 years straight.

I agree with low doses...for health's sake, and that \way you can save money, and afford to do more cycles.

**thegame01** · 11-27-2002, 08:01 PM

i agree100% sir victorian .I am curently taking 300 mg of test and deca a week each .I feel that is not alote of juice .I also beleive that these guy's took more then their claims .Now a days it's getting rididulous with 2-3 grams a week and gh ,insulin ,synthol etc etc .

The doses are insane and thats why people get sick especially if not educated and monitored by docs .You cant beat the old look imo .Arnold ,zane ,scott,oliva,dickerson,draper,columbo,big lou, etc etc and even the older smaller ones like Steve reeves looked great

what do people consider small doses anyways ??? just curious
GZ

**Sir Victorian guy, V.C.** · 11-28-2002, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by thegame01
what do people consider small doses anyways ??? just curious
GZ

There is a threshold level of steroids that you need to do in order to acheive a noticeable anabolic effect.

The range with test- 200 mg a week and up
Decca- 200mg a week and up

Decca, when tested in rats, produced nil effect up to a certain level, then from that level on produced results. If you go below a certain level, nothing.
Check the recommended doses in steroid profiles...the lower figures are usually the minimal amounts required for effect, go below and nothing.

**BASK8KACE** · 11-28-2002, 01:42 AM

When I've written about low doses in relation to testosterone and Equipoise , I've refered to doses of 200mg-300mg per week(low).

I do NOT consider 400mg every week (ew) for test and EQ a high dose but it's getting pretty close to high. I consider a high dose as anything greater than or equal to 500mg ew (NOTE--these numbers are based on using test and EQ as examples).

**bulkmeUP** · 11-28-2002, 02:13 AM

so in conclusion...........

what amount of test is safe for 15-20 weeks?
which anabolic is safe for 15-20 weeks? definately not deca ...

also, all these builders say they took 1 dbol tab for everyday of the year... how many of them have had liver problems? other problems? im curious..

**lwb357** · 11-28-2002, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by bulkmeUP

also, all these builders say they took 1 dbol tab for everyday of the year... how many of them have had liver problems? other problems? im curious..

the problem is we don't know this to be a fact, at this point it's only locker room conjecture, but we do know guy's like lyle alzado who took roids, GH and insulin had major problems while we can't point to any of the oldies who have because most of them are still alive. ie scott, olivia, draper, coe, and even second generation like schwarzenegger, zane, ferrigno

just the fact that they are still around speaks volumes

**hammerhead** · 11-28-2002, 06:38 AM

Genetics has alot to do with it. There are far more complicated processes at work here than just testosterone levels and protein metabolism. I cannot take gear and have the same muscle-building potential as Arnold Swarzeneger - if I could i'd sure as hell look alot like him by now don't you think?

It really is funny to read these threads and see all the people who still cannot grasp the idea that not every 2 people are alike. "If it worked for me it should work for you" is the prevailing idea.

The competitors BY FAR have superior genetics to the average joe blow in the gym. Zero doubt about it - not open for discussion - it's fact. The sky is blue too. We won't debate that either.

There are important factors that vary from man to man - endogenous testosterone levels, the effect gear has on your HPTA, your bodies' ability to adapt to change and to stop responding to a particular dosage of gear, and on and on ...

Do we take too much gear? Maybe. This thread is food for thought - we have a tendency to think that more gear is the answer when maybe we need a better diet or a better workout. I'm going to think long and hard about that before planning my next cycle.

If I had Arnold's genetics I wouldn't even take AAS. Why are we even discussing what works for Arnold in the context of what works for me? I'm not Arnold. Nowhere near it. What i'm driving at is : learn what works for you and use it to improve yourself. Learn from the next guy over but stop depending so damn much on what works for the next guy over and focus on what works for you. That's my point.

**BASK8KACE** · 11-28-2002, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by hammerhead
Do we take too much gear? Maybe. This thread is food for thought - we have a tendency to think that more gear is the answer when maybe we need a better diet or a better workout. I'm going to think long and hard about that before planning my next cycle.

If I had Arnold's genetics I wouldn't even take AAS. Why are we even discussing what works for Arnold in the context of what works for me? I'm not Arnold. Nowhere near it. What i'm driving at is : learn what works for you and use it to improve yourself. Learn from the next guy over but stop depending so damn much on what works for the next guy over and focus on what works for you. That's my point.

Yes, I think people do depend too much on what works for the next guy. But, there is no formal, reliable medical data that we can turn to about steroids ; we can only experiment on our own or ask about other's experiences in an attempt to avoid "reinventing the wheel."

I think new users should learn that when it comes to AS, the only way one will find out what works for him/her is to experiment. Which brings me back to what I've said all along: If you're experimenting with something that could potentially harm you, then why not start out slow and steady rather than risking health problems by starting too fast (using unecessarily high doses)? I think some of the people who start out high and grow like weeds would have probably done just as well on lower doses, because they had a genetic advantage in the FIRST place.

I wish we could compile data from people who have done several stacks to see where they personally stopped noticing a difference when increasing their doses. For example, I've already read posts of people who have declared that they have not found much difference between 400mg and 600mg of EQ per week. Any one have something to add to this data--perhapse on other steroids? (I know each person has a different reaction to steroids, but there should be some sort of bell curve formed if we look at several instances of AS use).

**JP1570** · 11-29-2002, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by hammerhead

It really is funny to read these threads and see all the people who still cannot grasp the idea that not every 2 people are alike. "If it worked for me it should work for you" is the prevailing idea.

I'm glad you said it because it was beginning to piss me off. I know I used legit gear, there's a lot of people on this board that can vouch for my source. I know my diet was good and I know hot to workout, I've been doing it for 8yrs now. I also waited till I was almost 22 to juice. Still some genuises can't accept the fact that I only made minimal gains from 400mg test cyp and 400mg eq each wk for 10wks. Once I threw in the fina, my gains and strength went through the roof.

**BASK8KACE** · 11-29-2002, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by JP1570
I'm glad you said it because it was beginning to piss me off. I know I used legit gear, there's a lot of people on this board that can vouch for my source. I know my diet was good and I know hot to workout, I've been doing it for 8yrs now. I also waited till I was almost 22 to juice. Still some genuises can't accept the fact that I only made minimal gains from 400mg test cyp and 400mg eq each wk for 10wks. Once I threw in the fina, my gains and strength went through the roof.

JP1570, I think you misinterpreted the spirit of hammerhead's post--but you'll have to ask him. I think that many people will agree that if 400mg of test taken with 400mg of eq each week for 10 weeks gave you only "minimal" gains, then something was off. I still say, with that amount of AS you should have gained a lot.

By the way, could you quantify "minimal" for us? Did you only gain 3 or 4 lbs? I think people generally expect 20-25 pounds on that stack. I know every one's not the same--I truly understand that. But, I can't see how your body would not respond to that much AS.

**joe_capone** · 11-29-2002, 01:43 AM

talkin about genetics... i never did steroids till i turned 21.. be i even started juice.. i was huge thanks to my father... i was about 200 lbs.. amazing body 7% fat... after i did my first cycle i blew up with a very very low does.. 250 mg of sustanon per week.. i didnt even execeed the dose to 500!! 14 amps for 14 weeks got me 20 lbs heavier.. i was 250!! i even have a pic of me flexing b4 i started juice.. if u wanna see it let me know... u see here... u dont need high doses to get huge... its all about the diet... and how u work out... and rest is important too. however i chose never to do a bulking cycle in my life again... im sticking to cutting cycles.. being huge... is not realy good for the health im talking about the long run..... saggy skin... stretch marks.. and so on... just my 2 cents

**JP1570** · 11-29-2002, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by BASK8KACE

JP1570, I think you misinterpreted the spirit of hammerhead's post--but you'll have to ask him. I think that many people will agree that if 400mg of test taken with 400mg of eq each week for 10 weeks gave you only "minimal" gains, then something was off. I still say, with that amount of AS you should have gained a lot.

By the way, could you quantify "minimal" for us? Did you only gain 3 or 4 lbs? I think people generally expect 20-25 pounds on that stack. I know every one's not the same--I truly understand that. But, I can't see how your body would not respond to that much AS.

At the end of wk 8, I had gained a little over 5pounds. It was lean mass, and I could see a small difference, but my strength had not gone up much at all. I noticed my appetite going way up also. Wks 9-14 I ran fina at 100mg ed. I gained over 15 pounds in those 6wks and my strength went way up. Maybe my body responds better to strong androgens than to weak ones like eq. I'm sure the test I took was a little underdosed also, (it was TT cyp and the eq was qv)but I though for a first cycle I would see better gains.

**BASK8KACE** · 11-30-2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by JP1570

At the end of wk 8, I had gained a little over 5pounds. It was lean mass, and I could see a small difference, but my strength had not gone up much at all. I noticed my appetite going way up also. Wks 9-14 I ran fina at 100mg ed. I gained over 15 pounds in those 6wks and my strength went way up. Maybe my body responds better to strong androgens than to weak ones like eq. I'm sure the test I took was a little underdosed also, (it was TT cyp and the eq was qv)but I though for a first cycle I would see better gains.

JP,
I wonder if your cyp was good at all, because what you gained (5 lbs in 8 weeks) is par for the course for an EQ-only Cycle. On top of that, you said it was 5 lbs of "lean mass." Generally, that's what EQ will give you.

With 400mg every week of equipoise AND 400mg every week of testosterone , I would have expected SOME water weight gain (from the test) and (as I've said) more muscle gain--enough for you, at the very least, to put on 15 lbs.

Before you hold onto the idea that your body didn't react to testosterone, I would carefully investigate the possiblility that your test cyp was from a very bad batch (you may have been scammed). Just my $ .02 worth.

Best to you.

**JP1570** · 11-30-2002, 12:59 PM

Thanks, I'll look into that.

**The Butcher** · 11-30-2002, 04:07 PM

JP 1570, I think your TT cyp was the problem. People in my area stopped buying TT gear almost a year ago b/c it wasn't working for anyone. And I'm not just talking about one or two people. NOBODY would buy it. I took 5 bottles of their Sus 250 (4cc/week) and 600mg/week of their Deca and got 5lbs out of that. Obviously, their shit was fake. And yes, they were legit TT bottles straight out of MX. My verdict is still out on qv gear. Everytime I have used one of their products I have stacked it with other brands so it's hard to say which was really affecting me. So, as Bask8kase theorized, your eq was probably legit (hence the 5 pound gain), and the cyp was not. So, try 400 or 500 mg/week of another test (preferably one that you know is legit) and see what kind of gains you get. Perhaps some Infar Sus at 2ml/week would get you more of the size you were looking for. I think you will be much happier.